zlacker

The theory is that the coins were legally seized, then illegally stolen by the police officer. So the crime is theft (and various other things relating to a police officer stealing from "the system", like abuse of office), but not an illegal seizure.

>>gowld+(OP)
Ah but if the defendant is later found innocent or charges dropped, who is sued to recover the property? The police officer or the department. Presumably the department because deeper pockets etc.

>>gowld+(OP)
Thanks for that explanation. It completely reverses my initial view point.

>>antish+a2
But from what I understand the department doesn't have the allegedly stolen property - the officers themselves do. Which is why the (innocent, I might add) individuals are left without recourse for action undertaken by government agents.

>>antish+a2
The police department is also the party who was legally responsible for those goods at the time, so obviously the defendant's case would be against the police department. The department is the one who was wronged by the officer, so they are the ones who have cause against him personally.

>>elliek+k3
Certainly in many other contexts, the parent organization has been found responsible for negligent or illegal behavior by their employee for civil damages. That's one of the reasons for drug testing and background checks.

>>gowld+(OP)
I don't think that explanation is accurate, see https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17...:

> Following the search, the City Officers gave Appellants an inventory sheet stating that they seized approximately $50,000 from Appellants’ properties. Appellants alleged, however, that the officers actually seized $151,380 in cash and another $125,000 in rare coins.

If the receipt was fraudulent, as is alleged here, I don't see how the seizure could be legal.

>>microt+3e
They even went so far as to falsify an inventory. Why would they go to that trouble if they believed their conduct was lawful? In my view this supports an allegation of wrongdoing.

>>Talane+v4
The defendants could make a reasonable case against both the officer who stole the property out of police custody and the police department that failed to protect it. The former for theft and failure to return the property to its owner, and the latter for negligence. I believe the term is "jointly and severally liable"?

The police department has its own separate claim against the officer, of course, for the costs they have incurred (separate from the value of the stolen property, which wasn't theirs to begin with) as a result of the officer's actions.